{"title":"Six-year clinical performance of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic CAD-CAM versus metal-ceramic crowns.","authors":"Ahmed Aziz, Omar El-Mowafy","doi":"10.4047/jap.2023.15.1.44","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the clinical performance of monolithic CAD-CAM lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LDGC) crowns and metal-ceramic (MC) crowns provided by predoctoral students. This study also assessed the effects of patient and provider-related factors on their clinical performance as well as patient preference for these types of crowns.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Twenty-five patients who received 50 crowns (25 LDGC CAD-CAM and 25 MC) provided by predoctoral students were retrospectively examined. LDGC CAD-CAM crowns were milled in-house using the CEREC Bluecam system and cemented with either RelyX Unicem or Calibra Esthetic resin cements. MC crowns were cemented with RelyX Unicem cement. Clinical assessment of the crowns and the supporting periodontal structures were performed following the modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Patients' preference was recorded using a visual analog scale (VAS). The results were statistically analyzed using log-rank test, Pearson Chi-squared test and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve complications were observed in the MC crown group (9-esthetic, 2-technical and 1-biological). In comparison, 2 complications in the LDGC CAD-CAM crown group were observed (1-technical and 1-esthetic). The 6-year cumulative survival rates for MC crowns and LDGC CAD-CAM were 90.8% and 96%, respectively, whereas the success rates were 83.4% and 96%, respectively. Overall, patients preferred the esthetic outcomes of LDGC CAD-CAM crowns over MC crowns.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The high survival and success rates, low number of complications, and the high level of patients' acceptance of monolithic LDGC CAD-CAM crowns lend them well as predictable and viable alternatives to the \"gold standard\" MC crowns.</p>","PeriodicalId":51291,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/53/4f/jap-15-44.PMC9992700.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2023.15.1.44","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the clinical performance of monolithic CAD-CAM lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (LDGC) crowns and metal-ceramic (MC) crowns provided by predoctoral students. This study also assessed the effects of patient and provider-related factors on their clinical performance as well as patient preference for these types of crowns.
Materials and methods: Twenty-five patients who received 50 crowns (25 LDGC CAD-CAM and 25 MC) provided by predoctoral students were retrospectively examined. LDGC CAD-CAM crowns were milled in-house using the CEREC Bluecam system and cemented with either RelyX Unicem or Calibra Esthetic resin cements. MC crowns were cemented with RelyX Unicem cement. Clinical assessment of the crowns and the supporting periodontal structures were performed following the modified California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Patients' preference was recorded using a visual analog scale (VAS). The results were statistically analyzed using log-rank test, Pearson Chi-squared test and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.
Results: Twelve complications were observed in the MC crown group (9-esthetic, 2-technical and 1-biological). In comparison, 2 complications in the LDGC CAD-CAM crown group were observed (1-technical and 1-esthetic). The 6-year cumulative survival rates for MC crowns and LDGC CAD-CAM were 90.8% and 96%, respectively, whereas the success rates were 83.4% and 96%, respectively. Overall, patients preferred the esthetic outcomes of LDGC CAD-CAM crowns over MC crowns.
Conclusion: The high survival and success rates, low number of complications, and the high level of patients' acceptance of monolithic LDGC CAD-CAM crowns lend them well as predictable and viable alternatives to the "gold standard" MC crowns.
期刊介绍：
This journal aims to convey scientific and clinical progress in the field of prosthodontics and its related areas to many dental communities concerned with esthetic and functional restorations, occlusion, implants, prostheses, and biomaterials related to prosthodontics.
This journal publishes
• Original research data of high scientific merit in the field of diagnosis, function, esthetics and stomatognathic physiology related to prosthodontic rehabilitation, physiology and mechanics of occlusion, mechanical and biologic aspects of prosthodontic materials including dental implants.
• Review articles by experts on controversies and new developments in prosthodontics.
• Case reports if they provide or document new fundamental knowledge.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
